Good, but flawed!

Rating: 7/10 (24 October 2002)

"28 Days Later" is an Ebola-virus type thriller, not too dissimilar to the UK TV mini-series "CHIMERA". Set in a post-apocalyptic, semi-futuristic time, we follow two survivors as they travel through London, to locate other people who may still be virus-free.
The film is good, but flawed. The first third of the film is exceptional, without a doubt: the sheer terror and brutality of what happens when Man tries playing at God! It's graphic, uncompromising, and not-at-all for the squeamish or sensitive! If you think a horror movie won't make you jump, be prepared! The final third, is also very good. However, the middle third, and the "ending" are pretty terrible.
The main problems, are down to the lack of empathy and feelings we have when the hero's meet-up with a gang of army officers, led by Brit-actor Christopher Eccleston. The men are essentially parodies of all the worst aspects of masculinity: the propensity for violence; the need to see women only as sexual objects; the laddishness. Yet, we don't really care if they make it out alive or not. Eccleston's performance is okay, but not his best, which is a real shame. His upper-class accent doesn't fit with the "Squaddie" character he portrays. A shame, especially when he is Manchester born and bred, and the Army squad are camped in Manchester.
As for the "ending", it really negates the film as a whole, and I suspect that 20th Century Fox may have demanded or forced the creators of this movie to tack it on, despite their protests. Even if that isn't the case, the ending ruins everything you've just watched in the preceeding two hours.
Ultimately, the virus isn't explained enough. We're told it was created, it exists, and has now escaped, but little else. As such, the nature of the way it can/cannot infect others, is left for audiences to accept unquestioningly.
As a horror film, it's good. As a British horror film, it's a real shocker. But as a complete movie, it's let down by the saggy middle part. Some trimming of this section, would have made a really tight, and raw movie. Maybe, reducing the running time to 100 minutes, perhaps. Whilst by no means a long film, as it stands, some of you may well come-out of the auditorium, feeling a little frustrated at how the film pans out. A good attempt, but not the "finest British horror film ever made".